McCarten on Key
February 6th, 2011 at 9:00 am by David FarrarMatt McCarten writes in the HoS:
In two quick simple decisions John Key transformed this year’s election, turning the tables on his opponents.
Setting the election date for November 26 was signalled well in advance. But I can’t remember any time when an incumbent prime minister didn’t keep the opposition (and the country) guessing on an election date right up until he or she popped up to the Governor-General to resign.
This one small perk of power was to keep your opposition off guard about dates. As someone who has had to run a few campaigns, it matters.
Not knowing when you can book venues, travel and events does matter.
The assured manner Key has gone about his announcement shows a confidence that should unnerve Phil Goff. To most voters Key has merely made a practical and transparent decision without any apparent political advantage.
The ones who will most be grateful to Key for the early announcement will be the Electoral Commission – they get nine months to organise an election, instead of six weeks. It means venues for polling places can be booked with certainity.
But the real stinger that deserves high praise was Key’s kneecapping of National nemesis Winston Peters.
Over recent months Peters has been slowly but consistently gaining support in the polls to the point where he could quite possibly once again have become the kingmaker in any post-election negotiations.
In one swipe Key has almost certainly dealt Peters a mortal blow. More importantly he got Goff as well. It’s a bold and gutsy move. Key made his fortune by taking calculated risks and he’s made what I suspect is a winning chess move. …
In one swoop Key gives us two choices of government after the election – a government led by him or a Labour/NZ First/Greens alternative. Voters make your choice.
I was astonished Goff and Peters claimed Key was naive and arrogant. It was a masterstroke.
And even better it was the right thing to do.
Goff has no choice but to accept Peters as his ally and this will hurt him. Any votes NZ First now gets won’t come from anyone who wants Key as prime minister.
Indeed. A vote for Winston is a vote for Goff to be PM, and a vote for Labour is a vote for Winston to be a Minister.
Key is positioning himself as the forward-looking positive leader and Goff is saddled with the old bodgie. Given the fact Goff was first in cabinet 36 years ago, to say he’s looking a bit tired is an understatement.
26 years ago. But it has been 42 years since Phil Goff joined the Labour Party.
Goff’s cautious reshuffle of his frontbench reinforces the problem. Only one change in the front bench at the same time as every old Helen Clark hack keeps their job.
It signals Goff does not have control of his caucus, he is timid by nature or he hasn’t got enough talent in his caucus. I suspect it’s all three.
I think it is more the first.
Related posts:
- Key rules out Winston again
- McCarten on Goff
- Goff and Winston
- Goff instructs Maori Party to support him
February 6th, 2011 at 9:12 am
I wonder how many votes that old bint Ruth Dyson gets for the Labour Party yet he leaves her on the front bench along with many others. The Labour Party has that tired look about it and combine that with Winston Peters and you have a very backward looking party. Do voters vote for a nostalgic past where money was easy, many will, but hopefully not enough.
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 9:16 am
Keeping your opponents off guard over the election date and not being able to organise also affects your own party. It not unusual for the Governing party to be also caught out as the date is only in the mind of the PM. And then the Leader gets pissed off because the party is not ready. I think John Key has worked that one out.
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 9:20 am
By doing this and showing confidence that he will win gives him positive media coverage, not the negative press usually given by the leftist media. Undecided voters like to back a winner.
Vote:For this to come from Mmmmaaatt is gobsmacking to say the least.
Hopefully National voters won’t be nonchalant, knowing Nat will win and will get out and vote. National will win but they cannot afford to be complacent.
Goff is toast.
February 6th, 2011 at 9:20 am
Methinks that Key is giving nothing away.
I always thought that the setting of election date was more an exercise in relevance than an ability to get an advantage. All campaigns are planned from election day back, you know that certain things happen a week before, two weeks before, a month before. You then find out the date and slot the timetable in.
The date was utterly predictable once the decision not to go early was made. December elections are considered to be unacceptable to the population. If you then worked through the possible dates the only two possibilities were November 19 or 26.
This allows National to start spending up large. They are cash rich thanks to numerous donations the source of which is unknown. I expect to see a big spend up for the next few months prior to the start of the controlled period.
And refusing to go into coalition with Peters lets Key occupy the moral high ground but also reflects reality. Peters was never ever ever going into coalition with National.
And his choice of morality is funny. Peters told a few porkies and this makes him persona non grata but Act knowingly selects someone who stole a dead baby’s identity and this is fine??
And before someone says that I am doing the same I am clearly not. My namesake’s death has been well publicised. There is even a huge park in Auckland set aside as a memorial.
[DPF: ACT selected someone whom 26 years ago broke the law. This is very different to someone who lied to the Prime Minister's face about his secret donations - he simply can not be trusted. You forgive errors of judgement - you don't forgive someone who lies to the public, the media, the PM, everyone - and still to this day refuses to accept he did anything wrong.
Oh, and the donations to National are not secret - those over $10K have all been disclosed publicly as both the EFA and current law requires (but rises to $15K this year]
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 9:21 am
A vote for National is a vote for the Maori Party, the racist party, and who knows what will happen with Act. I don’t agree with you, David. I think Winston wants to stay in parliament longer than Key and will not make that mistake about receiving baubles from Labour. I agree with Peters, Key assumes he will win the next election. He is loosing his core supporters with the foreshore and seabed debacle and has no plan except selling off assets to slow the debt down. This will turn off the center left that he has been working so hard to get these last two years.
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 9:29 am
I’d sure hate to play John Key at chess.
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 9:31 am
A vote for National is a vote for both the Maori Party and probably ACT and in particular Rodney Hide. Not sure that that this is better than a vote for NZ First and Winston Peters.
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 9:31 am
I think Peters was going to play a game with the voters. He holds out the prospect of teaming up with National to score some votes from People who want Key as Prime Minister. He plays this game quite well especially as he is gunning for as many votes as possible. Now he will only gets votes from People who want Phil Goff as Prime Minister Key has trumped Peters and for Goff and Peters to say this decision is naive its-self is a naive statement. Key plays chess, Goff and Peters play draughts.
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 9:45 am
When people realize that Key has no plan and they find their rates, food, electricity, petrol prices all going up I think they will start to look somewhere else. Winston will play this to its fullest. I don’t think that coalitions will play a part at this time.
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 9:46 am
So we have two options
Vote:Key and Hone
or
Goff and Winnie
they(Key and Goff) both have tails wagging them
February 6th, 2011 at 10:14 am
Key and Hone. FFS. Hone will be toast soon. Along with his snarky Nephew.
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 10:18 am
This argument has already entered the dead-horse stage and has done so for reasons evident to ordinary people not obsessed with politics. I don’t expect a partisan hack like Micky to understand this point, actually I welcome his tin-eared approach to getting Labour back into power. But in an effort to shift the debate onto meaningful subjects, I’ll repeat the central differences that make the comparison such a nonsense.
Garret was nowhere near being the leader of ACT and his “porkies” concerned a minor criminal act committed decades before he entered Parliament.
Winston was and remains not just the leader of NZ First but the personification of the party. He is the party. There is no distance between the two, so he’s a much bigger influence on what his party does and says than Garret ever was (or any other politician for that matter, save the equally silly Jim Anderton). Moreover the porkies he told were of his time in power and directly connected to how he achieved that power, making them very relevant to anybody who thinks about being in government with him. And that’s without even getting into the nonsense of being the Minister of Foreign Affairs and still being able to criticise a cabinet-level approved FTA.
But Mickey already knows all this. That’s why he sticks with a brainless soundbite; make the quick hit now as part of the endless stream of shit-flinging in lieu of ideas, a Trevor Mallard strategy that Mickey thinks will eventually drag Key down. Much more fun than having to contemplate dealing with the consequences when his beloved Labour whores itself to Peters again.
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 10:25 am
Winston has already described John Key as a political lightweight. Who would win in a debate? Pretty obvious answer there.
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 10:27 am
No, you wouldn’t.
The only opening Key plays is the Maori opening, which sacrifices material – his own pawns – for no positional advantage. He’s a terrible chess player.
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 10:29 am
Poor old Micky.
Two generations of manning the barricades for organised Labour now boils down to plumping for Winston First – that old rettes and whisky phoney. It’s pathetic.
I never thought I would see the day that the Labour Party attempted to prime the W1st pump. What a shocker.
McCarten is right – Key has not only dealt to W1st but he as has also set a standard – there are some things he will not do to keep power. That’s leadership.
As for BIG BIG money in politics Mickey – you mean like the $153K W1st still owes the taxpayer – even Helen Clark’s Labour coughed up the 800k when the Auditor General (acting as referee) called out the pols on their spending. But not ol smokey.
It’s a bit unwise to raise the issue of the influence of big money in politics. Winston has a few horses in that race.
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 10:35 am Vote:
February 6th, 2011 at 10:40 am
mickysavage said
That’s bullshit micky, and you know it. Peters is totally self-serving, and would go into coalition with whoever offered him the most pieces of silver. Key’s stance is principled, and entirely consistent with his 2008 position. You guys are stuck with the Senior Citizen from St Mary’s Bay
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 10:41 am
Good move on both counts by the Nats brains trust. If NZF don’t get 5% you’d think it will come down to Sharples and Turia and who they want to back.
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 10:42 am
@ Chris; it’s $158k actually, and that doesn’t include 5 1/2 years worth of interest …
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 10:45 am
Chris – “Two generations of manning the barricades for organised Labour now boils down to plumping for Winston First – that old rettes and whisky phoney. It’s pathetic.”
It’s like an aging old hooker who’s lost her looks and has to take whatever customer she can get for whatever price to perform whatever degrading acts they want that no one else would do. Time to quit.
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 11:01 am
@mickeysavage, back in November you wrote this:
“The biggest difference for me between New Zealand under Labour and under National is that principled, competent and compassionate leadership has been replaced by a leadership intent on retaining power for powers sake but without any idea of what to do to address our problems.”
http://gp4teatatu.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/why-labour-can-win-the-2011-election/
Now John Key has taken a principled stance and ruled out forming a coalition with Peters, this is a clear signal that Key would rather walk away than let Peters near the levers of government again.
I think Labour still see Peters as a viable coalition partner. Good luck with that, as I think Labour working with Peters will be enough impetus to give National enough votes to govern alone.
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 11:19 am
Manolo @ 10.27am
The chicken entrails are a little opaque this morning but I’ll still stick my neck out My prophesy is that the JK we have seen for the past 3 years will bear little resemblance to the JK of the next parliamentary term. He was forced to match Dear Leader’s bribes to secure his foot in the door & if he reneged on those promises he’d be going into this election looking like sliced quiche. This year he’ll promise an updated version of Winston Churchill’s “blood, sweat & tears” promises (with a fair bit of spin) & go into the next term unencumbered with unworkable pledges.
2012 should prove to be an interesting year.
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 11:24 am
Now that JK has shunned WP, Labour has an extra option. They might decde that they could go with the Maori Party (or whats left of the various parts of it) and leave NZF on the sidelines.
If Nat plus Act (or Hide) plus UF (Dunne) don’t get to 59 or 60 seats- where are they going to the get the numbers from?
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 11:29 am
I fervently hope you are right, but only time will tell.
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 11:39 am
mickysavage>And his choice of morality is funny. Peters told a few porkies and this makes him persona non grata but Act knowingly selects someone who stole a dead baby’s identity and this is fine?? And before someone says that I am doing the same I am clearly not. My namesake’s death has been well publicised.
Mick Savage from Snells Beach has passed away? That is a shock! At least he went to his grave unaware that the man using his identity was promoting another Labour-NZ First coalition.
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
I’m interested that Matt has decided to put the knife into Labour. He’s usually a little careful about criticizing his own team. This means either that even the left can see that Goff is dog tucker (excluding Mickysavage), or that Labour is no longer Matt’s team. I suspect it’s the latter.
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 1:06 pm
“Peters’ decision to prioritise repealing the anti-smacking laws, oppose the latest compromise over the seabed and foreshore, and introduce binding referendums as part of our political process makes him look irrelevant”
I can’t believe McKarten is trying to down play the very basic reasons why most will vote against National. The referendums look good because government has ignored the taxpayers and voters for 11 years. The anti-smacking law is irrelavant??? When approximately 55% of the voters voted 87 percent against it.And the foreshore and seabed where Finlayson, hired by John Key, is a list mp who is iwi’s lawyer and has the maori affairs committee be the select committee. That’s like having the klu klux klan be the select committee civil rights. Winston just got my vote.
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Actually, PaulL, I think it is both.
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
If binding referendums (referenda?) became law, jackp, then I think in 10 years time you would see NZ in the same position as California – so boxed in by binding referendums left right and centre, that there is no room left to manoeuvre, and on the verge of bankruptcy. It’s a recipe for disaster.
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 1:15 pm
PaulL,
I think it is a little riposte to Trotter’s attempt yesterday to scare support away from a potential new left of left party. By painting Labour as the loser-in-waiting, McCarten seeks to negate the argument that giving votes to the new left party could cost Labour (more importantly, the Left) the election.
This in-fighting amongst the Left is so much fun. And it all serves to further ensure their loss in November.
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
Oh and nice to see you would prefer to vote of an obvious corrupt crooked politico.
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
sigh. What happened to the edit option? “for” not “of”. :p
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Chris Diack. Changed any incorporated society rules lately?
Two generations of manning the barricades for organised Labour now boils down to plumping for Winston First – that old rettes and whisky phoney. It’s pathetic.
I never thought I would see the day that the Labour Party attempted to prime the W1st pump. What a shocker.
I am definitely not advocating for Winston nor defending him. I am just saying that if this was a principled stand by Key he would rule out working with ACT as well. I suspect this will be academic as I think and hope that come November ACT will be terminal.
Key has not set a standard. He has taken a big gamble.
Don’t ask me why Winston has not paid the money back. I have no interest and do not support NZ First.
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 1:59 pm
David in Church, I can remember when the first big referendum came out in California, the Al Jarvis initiative. Prop 113. At that time the property tax was I believe around 10 percent of value if memory serves me well. As property values rose, people were forced to sell their houses to pay the tax to bureaucrats. The prop lowered it to 1 percent. The campaign against it by bureaucrats was a lie, that social services would suffer. It passed by around 70 or 80 percent. Overwhelmingly! No social services were lost. Yes, as time went on the corrupt politicians and interest groups with millions put into the campaign would come up with similar referendums like the original to confuse the public and dissolve the whole thing. That’s because 3 or 4 of them were running at the same time. New Zealand can learn from this by putting only one referendum in at a time so as not to confuse the public. California is around 35 million, New Zealand is the size of a small city, it can be controlled. There are other reasons why california went broke such as vested interested groups lobbying legislators which is happening here. Lobbying should also be illegal.
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 2:08 pm
Perhaps mickey, but you do support a party which led retrospective legislation to legitimize their theft of taxpayer money. $800k is quite a wedge mickey. One could be excused for thinking it grand larceny really. Can you perhaps recall the party that immediately paid back their overspending once it was determined and didn’t lobby for retrospective legislation? That would be a principled party don’t you agree? Unlike the other large party of course.
By the way it would seem a little strange that you continue to attack ACT over Garrett. As I recall your Party and leadership endorse counterfeiting. Or does that only apply to art? Or does that only apply to a specific Party?
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 2:53 pm
jackp – It is not one referendum that does the damage, but the cumulative effect of many boxing them in. You do make some good points, which add to the impacts of those many referendums over the years.
And even you note that “similar referendums like the original to confuse the public and dissolve the whole thing.” That’s the entire point, isn’t it? That well-funded special interest groups put up a referendum here and there and the net result is a legislature that has no room to move.
How do your comments contradict mine?
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
@ bhudson; and don’t forget that Labour also endorses creativity in the production of its billboards featuring the photograph of its former leader; artistic licence anyone?
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
Act can never live down Garrett. Amazing that supposedly he was on Kiwiblog the other day calling someonelse a charlatan.
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
nasska Aha. So the John Key we have all come to know as an open book, a genuinely nice guy and a very able PM will throw off his lamb’s clothing to be revealed as the big bad wolf! So far, it has all been a devilishly clever act!
Key is as close to ‘what you see is what you get’ in a politician as we have had for ages.
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
I’d rather have a Garrett who did something really silly a quarter of a century ago and has redeemed himself since, than Clark and Peters who happily ripped us off for years – on our own dollar!
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
mickey, I don’t see Garret as really being the same thing as Winston. Ruling out Winston as a leader, and a coalition partner, is fully about ruling out someone who was dishonest and refuses to admit it, and therefore simply cannot be trusted. He leads the party, he is the party, therefore you must rule out the party.
With ACT, we have an MP (not the leader) who had a conviction in his past that he admitted and did his punishment for, as determined by a judge. When this came out, he resigned, and is no longer an MP. I’m very unclear as to why Key would now rule out ACT – everything about this is different.
It also therefore follows for me that you have no idea of what principles actually are, that you think a principled stand would be to rule out ACT.
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 4:48 pm
David , Mp’s and special interest groups with a lot of money will try to change it. Make referendums off limits to mp’s. Make them more accountable to the taxpayers. think about it… wouldn’t it be great to balance the government books and then civil servants would be forced to be trimmed down (fired) as a result of mandate by the people… politicians wouldn’t have to take the rape for it. Civil servants would look rather foolish striking against the taxpayers if their income was cut back so the country won’t go broke. These are only examples but there is a lot referendums can do if it was somehow kept away from the mp’s and lobbyist.
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
jackp,
Perhaps one way of preventing a glut of referenda could be to raise the number of petition signatures required to initiate a binding referendum. That would limit binding referenda to issues with broad support. (the current signature requirement could be retained for non-binding referenda – assuming anyone might want to initiate one.)
I think the idea of limiting the influence of special interest groups, while laudable, would be all but impossible to achieve.
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
BeaB @ 3.26pm
Not quite. I accept that John Key is genuine & I agree that he is probably the most personable politician in living memory. I was rebutting the suggestions that crop up here from time to time that he is a do nothing PM seeking only to be popular. He hasn’t been able to achieve what hard core National supporters deem necessary because of specific campaign promises he made in 2008. Unlike some slimeballs (eg Bolger) he seems a man of his word.
IMO he’ll promise little this year in order to give himself room to move. It will not be a headlong rush back to Victorian England as some imbeciles would prefer but we should see some policy changes favouring the workers over the beneficiaries.
Time will tell.
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 5:05 pm
Your probably right, bhudson, realistically speaking. What you say about signitures might be a step in the right direction, although, those with a lot of money could just hire people to go out and get signistures. Usually the best referendums are from grass roots without a lot of money only principles.
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
“..Unlike some slimeballs (eg Bolger) he seems a man of his word…”
aah..!..that’s a knee-slapper…! there..nasska…
shd we list his lies/broken promises now..?
…or save it ’till nearer the election..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
jackp (610) Says:
February 6th, 2011 at 9:21 am
“A vote for National is a vote for the Maori Party, the racist party,..”
Oh ffs.
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
nasska 11:19 I sure hope you’re right.
cheers
David Prosser
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 6:15 pm
Masterly summation by McCarten. Key has certainly played his cards right.
I will agree with jackp though, the GST, fuel, food & utilities rises will surely eat away at Key’s popularity amongst the average wage & salary earners. I would suspect many affected adversely are first time, or first time in a long time, National voters. An associated drop in vehicle registrations, or something similar, would not be a bad idea to counteract price/GST rises.
The rub for most voters will lie right with the hip pocket in November…
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 6:23 pm
“..The rub for most voters will lie right with the hip pocket in November…..”
all of which leads to the conclusion that centre-left parties that promise to attend to those basic bread & butter issues..
..to attend to the needs of those hurting…
..will do well in the election..
..and one-term-john it is..
and i wd like to repeat my observation that what shd concern national party people the most…
…is that imho..key dosen’t really care one way or the other…
..he’ll go thru the motions..
..but he’s been there..done that…crossed that off his to do/wish-list…
..and actually…it’s more of a pain in the arse than he thought it wd be…
..so he will be quite happy to hive off to his compound in hawaii…
….and to start playing with his squillions again…
..after he loses the election…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 7:06 pm
Dunno phil, the other side of the coin is that many will also not want another Labour govt., even with the wicked witch not at the helm. Some serious “don’t want to go there again” mindset from many….and with good reason!
Fool Cough is yesterdays man, and has offered sunshine & raspberries. The sector of the electorate I was referring to, certainly those who have struggled through the recession, are not taken in by bubblegum promises any longer…
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 7:56 pm
Mickey Savage … don’t flatter yourself Mr Presland, no one confuses you with a dead PM, , you’re on a licensing trust or something equally important
Although you did try to get elected for about 5 public tit feeds at the last local body elections
Winston a few porkies,…………… fuck off you disingenuous clown
Even a total goose like you must realise when Matt does a great summation like he did today, you are a rat without a ship to desert.
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 8:36 pm
Matt McCarten’s column is very surprising. He is no fan of the right. You know you must be doing the right thing when your enemies start praising you.
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
I posted tjos on the ‘HOS on Winston’ thread but it is more relevant here i think (in terms of expressing my view)
I think many of you have missed the biggest point of all…..there is and has been a new type of politics in town since JK has taken the helm. You wait with baited breath for the trickery and deciept we are so used to….he doesn’t play that game. He has easily realised that sometimes you may loose a fight but he will win the war he beleives is worth fighting for such as his hand holding with Mother at Waitangi……I am sure he hated every second of it….but imagine the shit fight if he said no thanks. Sure many of us would have liked the drama, but would it add value? Surely politics is such a long term focus….you can’t change the world in 2 years but I suspect many have expected absolute miracles from this government in the most extraordinary times. He has clearly stated that IF NZ aren’t looking for what JK and National are standing for, then they will vote the other way. Why so much hostility from so many of you here? I find it strange.
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
The problem with zealots of the left and right is that you want everything implemented immediately – that’s never gonna happen, otherwise you are a one term government. The Key strategy is clearly not to frighten the voters – therefore the positioning as a different kind of politician – one who is seen not to play the usual games, one who seeks a mandate for controversial changes. He will get a lot more implemented over 3 terms of incremental change than he would on one term of shock and awe.
Vote:February 6th, 2011 at 10:53 pm
nadir, that is what Key wants you to think. It won’t happen. He doesn’t have a plan. And, he is already scaring me with the foreshore and seabed bill, that is a complete sham, doesn’t look like he is taking his time with that, nor the ets nor the gst, nor what he isn’t doing like lowering the price tag of government, he increased it. And now he thinks that selling assets is good, short term but not long term. Key is feathering his own bed while he smiles and waves.
Vote: